Titled: 'For free Barby DVDS and 2nd home, apply within'
Quite a ball breaking deal isn't it for MP's. Not only they get paid but they have loads of allowances as well that the taxpayer pays for, forget the sad humble credit crunched taxpayer. We are beneath you, we are your servants. Your so clever in voting yourselves pay increases and dreaming up weird and wonderful expense listings. It is of course your birth-right, to strut yourself around Westminster like you own it. Puff your Cuban cigars like there is no tomorrow ladies; and ladies put all expenses down payable to the taxpayer.
A quick thought on our MP's expenses
- 'Oh please get it sorted as we surely don't want another horror video posted on YouTube by a Mr Gordon Brown from London', playing with his webcam.
For free Barby DVDS and second home, apply within
On one expense form two years ago a larger than life MP who shall remain nameless, well he likes boxing, and food; actually put down "FOOD" down as expenses. I hope you don't get into a scramble over that clue. 'Answers please at the end of the review the winner will get a signed photo of me'; naturally a decent rating will be required and I will claim that the winner will be on the 99th 'right answer' - Please tell all your Ciao friends - Hence, I've got to pay for Jacqui Smith's husbands DVD collection, as she spends a lot of time away, tinkering with her expense forms, while he is tinkering with other matters, she employs him as her Personal Assistant at 27,000 per year. It's a hard job but he gets his perks I'm sure.
For some jobs especially MP's do not have the problems of equal pay scenario's, or even pay in general, they are treated to the same perks and it is not documented anywhere that women take home less pay than there counter-parts. Their expense forms are no doubt a completely different matter and are therefore published similarly to any Limited company accounts; then again, who has the time to troll through this entire bureaucratic dribble, you might as well leave it to the tabloid researchers who churn out all the juicy bits for us, the UK public to digest, under ethical grounds.
Women of course have more ethical processes to digest matters and then they're generally pro-react to whatever is deemed as most ethical, whether that hinders progress at work or performance I shall say that is questionable. I feel lots of you females eye-brows rising at this point, so that's is all I'm divulging on that paragraph; lets move swiftly on.
Remember that wonderful prize that awaits you, it is very likely going to go to a female, I believe. - Well, I'm 50% sure it will. I'm pretty good with stats as is a high proportion of males are, compared to our lovely counter-parts, who are more attractive than we are, well 'moi' especially. What successful women do that I've found is they use their feminine charm to a much greater deal than not so successful women and this is regarded as being confident and works hugely in their favor. The work environment can also endorse this way of thinking as it is never deemed as a good thing to be too quiet when dealing with work matters. The chances are that if you're too insular the chances are that you would not be able to cope with higher corporate positions whereby dealing with clients would have to be second nature. I've noticed myself that I've had a higher wage than most women doing the same job. I put it down to - He who dares wins. I've found it quite astonishing that women do not ask for pay rises and even see it as unethical. This isn't just a few; a lot of women find it difficult to talk about their wages, compared to men.
It has well broadcasted the pay gap between men and women have nothing to do with discrimination by employers. It has been argued that the difference in salaries between both sexes came down to 'individual lifestyle preferences', or recognizing individual worth or not so. More men will amplify their worth which probably is way off the mark as women are likely to dull down their worth and seem to take second fiddle. This is not universally the case but seems to be the trend, when looking into men and women wage slips. The difference on average is 1% more to men, what I've found even more amazing is that there are only 7% of ladies that are CEO's in UK, the problem isn't surely just about families and gender role recognition.
Big careers seem to favor men more in more high powered positions and even in these high powered positions men are still likely to take home 3% more on salaries than women; so this is surely a culture matter rather than any gender discrimination that in some cases I've found to be staggeringly unfair. Women have more choices than men do when it comes to child-care. Weighing up the maternal urges and sacrificing 5 years in continue employment is a very tough matter and I'm not the right person to ever realize the huge impact that seems to make for any career path. Westminster, has tried to induce a maze of tiers, by making new parents to go back to work as early as possible, or they have to reimburse the treasury for public sector maternity pay; quite astounding and tough for heavy heart public sector workers, trying to earn a measly crust at a lower rate of pay than their male counter-parts, while the MP's swan around inventing expense form listings. This is the reality of so many female workers who do not have the choice and deserve equal pay within the public sector; and Westminster is right behind schemes such as equal opportunities, though as an employer fail miserably in giving equal pay to public sector workers.
Yet another sound-bite piece of political dribble. The weirdest thing is MP's agree that the wage discrimination in our culture does exist. Women right activists are appalled, and have been for a long while. By depriving women earnings that they have earned which many of which are one parent families, have encouraged them to take up benefits such as tax credits, this is delusional and it just underlines UK's surreal benefit system that gives more benefits to single parent mothers without a partner, that alone in the same breathe ostracize fathers. We now have a generation of young people in some parts of the UK who have seen at the first-hand the break-up of family values. The unfair gender wage slips and the deranged benefit system has had a lot to pay in these facts, in return this counteracts what a true democracy is, as this gender wage problem has always been apparent.
Since women have got the vote the little darlings now want equal wages the same as their male counter-parts, what is the world coming to? - Yes we really are still in Victorian times when it comes to UK wage equality. Why does it have to come to a hot headed discussion with your ignorant boss about your wages? All I can tell you ladies; is that choose a particularly hard day within your cycle and throw down the gauntlet. It just may have to come down to a pulsating vein in head moment to just get your worth; if it doesn't use this review to help you. A male prospective can sometimes bare fruit, but usually after hearing it from a woman first.
The difference in wages when it comes to overtime is even more staggering when matched up gender to gender at an hourly rate; a mammoth 17.2% in favor of men, doing the same job. It is about time the Iron axe female lobbyists take centre stage and rectify this in my opinion.
The Chief, of the Government's Equality Commission who is a woman, said last year that full-time women workers 'are cheated of £330,000 over the course of their life'; which is remarkably close to the same amount of money it costs for a second home. This opinion isn't the case for people under the age of 30 years as the pay is more inline with their male counterparts wage slips, it only changes dramatically after the age of 32 years, about the same time when women are looking to have children and using up maternity leave. Is this just a coincidence? - Well I fear it isn't, employers look at the prolonged periods of employment as much more credible factors in middle management than for people who have had time-out for child rearing for example, whether it is just systematic work protocols it would be highly not 'politically correct' to discuss at length. It would be deemed as a very flammable topic, and the potential of being run out of town by feminists would not look good especially as my girlfriend would have a lot to scorn at. She knows, as much as I know that I use humor to hide uncomfortable or tender subject matters. I'm not the most sensitive I must claim but all above is fact and I'm in favor of a more equal wage scheme.
The biggest difference that I have found by working with woman is that they have different heads for whatever job is required of them. A very high percentage of women state that they're in 'work mode' while at work and at home they are in 'nag mode' that is what I say. It is so difficult for the modern woman to juggle with all what is required of her. It is impossible to have this machine gender that multi-tasks and still be an amazing Mother. Westminster asks too much of women in our culture. It is no wonder that in work women have suffered on pay. The modern woman has to sacrifice a particular lifestyle to make life choices manageable; our multi-task hard-working women are being taken for granted and I encourage women to stand tall and recognize their worth.
The Institute of Economic Affairs reports that the pay gap is a lot wider when it comes to women who have had three children this is where the gap has grossly expanded for the worse; a staggering 19% difference for doing the same job as their male counterparts. These groups of women are being held back by non ethical work practices. This has to be address in the House of Commons. The Institute also explained that women are less likely to take risks which in the long-term would benefit them financially, so maybe the 'mother instinct' has a part to play when dealing in a capitalistic society. - I refer to the 'Hunter' 'Gatherer' term as women are 'Gatherers' constantly feathering their nests, while man is the 'Hunter' out taking risks to feed his families. Whether the 'Gatherer' works in business I will state, not for making money but it is excellent in stabilizing funds, and is superb for efficiency.
Power to the people! especially to those hard working women with big families.
Thank you for reading 'For free Barby DVDS and 2nd home, apply within'.
All the information regarding statistics and certain terms of language is correct and is now open to debate. - signed picture of myself is available for any women who like playing darts , enjoy.
Copyright - 04 2009 - 1st2thebar
I think that because women's rights have come so far in this country we forget that women as a group are still discriminated against. We're discriminated against in so many aspects of our life so why would work be any different?
Discrimination against women begins at a young age. For those of us who are currently in employment it's likely that we were discriminated against in education. Until recently boys had to achieve less than girls to get into grammar schools and girls were discouraged from doing masculine subjects.
So then we get into employment and we've become accustomed to coming second to men, to having to work harder for the same rewards.
Thankfully education is changing and so is employment. It may not be changing as quickly as I would like it to because as far as I'm concerned thereshouldn't be any question, women should be getting paid the same as men, but it is at least changing.
I think to an extent it's not always sexism as such. Employers try to get away with paying as little as possible and if it's the done thing to pay women less and they think that they can get away with it they will. We then help them by not talking about how much we get paid because it's not seen as polite and so these things never change. I think that employers would do the same to men if they thought they could get away with it.
Equality for women has come far but it still has a long way to go and we shouldn't forget that.
Men and women should indeed be paid the same. But only if they are undertaking identical work and achieving the same results.
Let me use the introduction, this year, of handing out equal prize money to Wimbledon winners (and losers) in spite of sex, as an example of an incorrect application of this basic principle (equal pay for equal work).
There are several reasons for why the winners of the male arm of tournaments are paid more: the higher skill level exhibited; the longer matches; the increased popularity (it has more fans) of the sport. The most important one of these is the first.
Now, the objection to this runs as follows: women might be performing at a lower level (this is not generally disputed) but they are performing at the highest level that they can (just as the men are). This, however, equates effort with ability whereas they must be differentiated.
An analogy proves my point. Say that there is a prize in a law firm for the highest fee earner (let us assume that fees earned is proportional to legal dexterity). Suppose that I have an inherent handicap (I can't read as well as the others because of an unfortunate mental affliction). I do my best to earn as much as the rest of the firm, but, by the objective measurement employed (amount of money earned) I do not do as do as well as some of the others, who earn more than me. Who should get the prize? The person who did the best, or the person who did the best within his class (say I did the best out of those with the same handicap as me)?
We should not overlook the differences between the sexes. To suggest that the women and the men are playing an identical game in terms of adroitness is a self-evident falsehood. To pay them, then, the same amounts for performing the same work at different levels of ability is wrong.
In short, my point is this: we should look beyond sex to the merits of the individual performance. I do not and would not assess the merit of a piece of work on the gender of the producer- for me, it is irrelevant. What is done, not who does it, is all that really matters.
Males and Females do the same jobs yet in some jobs men get more money. Why is this?
It is the society I think. Men were the original bread winners and this has remained, women are late entrants to the work place therefore have to play catch up.
Legally there should never be this discrimination.
What is quite funny is that some women are holding up the fort for men to pay less to women.
Companies with good practices pay same wages. Go and work for John Lewis or Tesco and you will get same wage as man. Move higher up the ladder and into managerial roles and the pay becomes less for women.
A woman has to be a very good manager to earn same amounts as men.
Some women run companies and they pay less to their female workers. It is also the market forces, men don't take time off for having babies etc, although men can take unpaid leave. Maybe this is the reason, women have to take career breaks whereas men don't.
I don't know what causes the pay discrepancies. I have just speculated on the causes. It is unfair to women because they are likely to work just as well as male workers.
Why does the pay gap occur?
It is unfortunate that this is still a hot issue. However it remains obvious why companies are unwilling to part with higher salaries for women than men. When firms employ women they do so with the consideration that a maternity leave is likely to be demanded and ostensibly they may well lose the employee completely in the long run. Therefore the firm is more likely to employ male employees and with building surplus of female workers, their wages remain lower. To futher this women take different genres of degrees to men with lower earning potential - for example circa three times more men take economics than women, whilst many more women take business degrees or go into care but as put by the Equal opportunities comission "How on earth can we justify, for example, the low pay received by people caring for children and older people - surely one of the most valuable roles in society?"
Statistical evidence for pay gap
The Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development's annual Reward survey in 2003 found that the only rare cases where women earn more than men exist in non-management positions. Whilst in 2002 overall the male and female pay gap widened mainly due to awards to male executives.
So what is being done?
The pay gap stayed out of the news for a few years until recently, mid-last year the women and work comission (set up in 2004 by Tony Blair) recommended £20 billion government spending on raising women skill levels (questionable as arn't the stereotyped female careers i.e. nursing and social work important?), promotion of part-time work i.e. making the workforce more occupationally mobile (reasonable tactic as allows mothers to easily rejoin the workforce), assistance in matching jobs and skills, advice for school girls (questionable again) and the development of equality representitives.
Wage discrimination is likely to continue indefinately - companies are always likely to be wary of employing females with the potential of childbirth. It shouldnt be so but for now (and until an alternative to child birth is introduced :P or else if maternity leave is restricted) it is unfortunately inevitable.
Ok, now this is definetely another touchy subject that I expect most women have a clear view on, while most men probably don't even think about it. I am planning to look at this issue by asking and answering questions on the subject so that I try to have some sort of structure to this debate.
Do women still get paid less than men?
I would say that it is clear that in some jobs and some industries, women are part less than their male counterparts for doing the same job. Is the problem widespread, well I just cannot answer that. Personally I have never heard any of my colleagues mention this as an issue, but it is not a subject that I have really talked about, and being a man has not really interested me in the past.
I would say that in most lower level jobs the pay is probably the same between men and women, but in some higher paid jobs, I think that women are still paid less than their male counterparts.
Is there a reason why women are paid less than men?
Personally I cannot think of any reason why men should ever be paid more for doing the same job as a women. I also cannot think of any reason why this should still occur today, but I will dwell a little more on this below. One think I will mention here, is that this is dependent on them doing the same job.
Is this a key topic that should be addressed?
Well this depends clearly on who you speak to. I would expect most men would say that this is not a topic that is of major interest or should be debated. I am sure however that many high ranking women would definetely like to see this addressed as they see that they are getting paid less than their male counterparts.
For example: Women Tennis players still get less prize money then the men. This is one example where I am kinda split in my thinking as the single male game does go on for longer and play more sets. Therefore it is not strictly the same job. Therefore on this issue I am slightly hesitant as to whether the prize money should be the same. However, if the women game brings in about the same money as the male game for the tennis operators, then they should be.
What should be the key aspect to be considered in this debate?
Now this is for me the crunch factor and is what should be the basis for everything that you consider thinking about when consider male and female equality in pay and in just about everything in life.
My view is that when looking at a job, or at pay or just about anything, then the key factor is IS THAT PERSON THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB. For me whether you are a woman or a man should not even be considered, rather are the skills appropriate and can they do the job. Equally when it comes to pay, this should not be considered on whether they are male or female rather on the job that they do and the success they have in that job.
Equally this is the key factor when employing people or promotions or just about anything. The only important factor should be how good can they do the job and nothing else.
DOES THIS HAPPEN?
Unfortunately not at the moment. I hear about positions in the police that can only be given to minorities or women or promotions which need to be women to equal the men and women on the board. This should not be considered or even looked at.
In short this is still a topic that is an issue but should not be.
This was on the news the other day and it was interesting because often when such items are covered there is usually a woman who has made it to the top of her field bought onto the show to comment and this lady was no different to the others in that she had very little negative to say. She had risen to the top of BP which is an industry that is still very male dominated infact she was the only woman director in the UK oil industry. In her view her pay was no different and she had been able to balance her home and work life having still got a family of school age.
It made me wonder that perhapsnews groups are focusing on the wrong group when they provide a spokesperson for these programmes. Although the workload for such a person must be huge it is probably a lot easier to balance home and work life when you have a high wage as you are able to buy in help.
What was not addressed was the fact that whether or not this individual earned the same wage as her male counterparts rather than the fact that she had risen to the same level.
I now work for quite a large company and it operates a system that has a range of pay scales which people sit within and each scale has a minimum and maximum level. Having seen thedata for the company which it produced in its annual accounts there is no difference in pay terms between genders.
In my opinion the only time the pay really differs is when women have time out of the workforce to start a family and therefore will miss the opportunity to get anything above the standard average pay rise rather than a higher one from a better appraisel rating.
One step the company has taken is to have a mid point on every pay scale and those below that level get an accelerated pay rise to bring them towards the mid point if their end of year rating is high enough, this has the effect of evening out pay levels for all people.
Certainly from my experience I see little pay diffrences between genders but then I can only comment on the industry I'm in and maybe it is different in other sectors.
Equal pay. We should be proud. This year is the 35th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. Weve had 35 years to put this law into practice.
Basically the law requires equal treatment of men and women in the same employment. So why did ACAS (the body who advise employers and help prevent and settle disputes) produce an article this week stating LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IS HOLDING BACK EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN?
Women working full time earn 20% less* than men. 50% of women (compared with 20% of men) earn less than £100 a week. In a pensioned couple, the woman will receive 32p for every £1 her partner receives. What really shocks me is that female graduates earn 15% less than male. Even new, educated employees just starting their careers are bearing the brunt. Fair pay really isnt here.
The theory according to ACAS is that there is a lack of understanding about equal pay amongst employers and employees. ACAS have a helpline and apparently less than 1% of calls to the helpline are about pay equality which, considering the statistics above is shocking. Why is that? Well we, as women have to take some responsibility. If we know were being paid less, (and Im sure at times we all do), why dont we act?
Fear of reprisals probably. As major carers and often the sole earner in low income families, the risk of losing your job is very real and very scary. Hell, even if it would be illegal for your employer to sack you on that basis, its also illegal to pay women less, doesnt stop them breaking that law does it?
Lack of Information
How do you know youre earning less? I dont. I have a suspicion its the case but without proof, how could I raise a complaint? How many people really openly tell you what their pay is? None or the naïve few? Thought so.
Chances of Success
Between 1975 and 2000, only 21% of equal pay claims were successful either in the courts or by out of court settlement. Considering the average womans reluctance to claim unless she were sure of her case, this is shockingly low.***
*** The glass ceiling ***
Its not just pay for the same job that causes pay differences. Look at the boards of major companies. See any women? If you do I bet its a rare occurrence. I think this is because the way Business is structured with a long hours culture and the most aggressive people being rewarded. This is detrimental to womens progression. I work as a manager and the most important part of my job is developing my team. Women are great at doing that and as a result, we make great managers. Team development skills need to be more recognised rather than archaic ball grabbing leadership.
*** So why? ***
Why do employers think they can get away with it? I think in the majority of cases its not a conscious decision. Sexism is still so ingrained in our culture. Think about how much housework women do in comparison with men, even if both work the same hours. I was also once told (by a female boss) that she wouldnt employ a woman of child bearing age because she might go on pregnancy leave. I was so furious with her (as I bet shed be the first to complain if the same attitude was levelled at her).
*** The Pregnancy Debate ***
Ive often heard that women should be paid less because theres a risk they may become pregnant. Its true that pregnancy is a bit of a pain for an employer. Alternative staff have to fill in for the absent employee for anything between 6 months and a year. Statutory Maternity Pay is first 6 weeks, 90% of your weekly earnings with no upper limit, remaining 20 weeks, £102.80 or 90% of your average weekly earnings if this is less than £102.80. As you can see, a company is only obliged to pay for 6 months and most of that is at a vastly reduced rate.** If youre paid £20,000 a year, this will cost a company £4,100. If women are paid 20% less than men, theyd have to have a pregnancy per year for their entire working life to justify the difference.
Ok, so you also lose a valuable member of staff as well but Ive benefited in the past from covering a maternity leave position, its a great way to be considered to fill a role youd normally not be considered for on experience grounds.
As you can see, there are downsides but there can be benefits to maternity leave and the cost of paying an employee while shes absent is often overestimated in peoples minds. Also remember that not all women will have children and those who do are likely to have 1 or 2 maximum in their lives.
*** The solution? ***
ACAS suggest that employers should be allowed to phase in equal pay over a period of time to negate the financial consequences. When I first read that I was incensed. How dare companies say they cant afford to pay women equally? The law came into force 35 YEARS AGO for Gods sake. Its hardly a short time is it?
The more I thought about it though, the more I saw the point. It could be an equal pay amnesty. If we do allow companies to phase in equal pay, it could be under the proviso that they have to investigate pay levels in their company themselves and have a limited time period to sort out pay variations. After that time, Chief Executives failing to take action should be jailed. Harsh? Well nothings happened so far has it? A few high profile cases like that will soon encourage a speedier (less than 35 year) response.
*** Why bother? ***
So women earn less, so what? Pay isnt just about being valued and rewarded fairly for our work. What people forget it as women are still the major carers of children in this country, equal pay for women would be a step in the right direction to eradicating child poverty. It also has other consequences. If women are unable to save for retirement, not only are they at risk of poverty in old age but also, as a society, we will have to support women in old age.
If youd like further information, a copy of the legislation with amendments is on http://www.eoc-law.org.uk/cseng/legislation/epa.pdf
* Source Fawcett Society http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk
** Source Department of work and pensions http://www.dwp.gov.uk/lifeevent/benefits/statutory_maternity_pay.asp
*** Source, BBC Womans hour http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2002_41_thu_01.shtml
FEMINISM. Hotly debated, very complex, and very possibly nearing extinction. Is there a place for feminism in its many forms in the 21st century? I'm going to take a chance (and possibly some bashing from my chauvinist male friend) and say 'yes'.
A lot of people out there argue that feminism no longer has a place in society, what with 'equal rights' between genders now in place. Uh huh. In that case, there's no argument against racism, because all races have equal rights. You see my point. Changes within the law often have no bearing upon REAL life. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the countries upoin this planet operate under a patriarchal society, have always done so, and may well continue to do so for hundreds/thousands of years. Conventions are difficult things to rid yourself of, and so I'd certainly say feminism is needed, wanted, and very much in action.
Now, forget all this recent radical rubbish about changing the word 'woman' becuase of its male content. Not all feminist schools of thought are hellbent on making a mockery of the cause. Contemporary liberal feminists focus more on renewing laws concerning women's equal rights, as well as highlighting the different needs that women have. After all, class divisions, race, religion, age and sexual orientation are all important factors in determining your needs.
Now, onto the main subject, finally. Women's equal pay. Laws exists to protect us from discriminatory employers, but, as we all know, not all individuals like to obey the law. I myself have suffered from this problem. Whilst working part-time at a well known supermarket to support my university education, I discovered some grossly unfair pay differences. Whilst the majority of all females employed in the store worked on the checkouts and were paid regular rate for over-time, the boys working on the shop floor were being paid DOUBLE time for any extra hours. This had nothing to do with the different job requirements. After some quiet investigation I realised the female employees performing the exact same job as the boys were also only being paid their regular rate for over-time. It is this kind of treatment that proves how relevant feminism remains in today's society.
What exactly warrants unequal pay between genders? If one woman and one man perform the exact same job to the same standard, then why on earth should they not receive the same wage package in return? I would truly like to hear a justified explanation for this. Forget the age-old biological argument; women are weaker. Difference in stature or strength warrant no bearing upon pay rates. If such were the case, employers could justify paying poorer rates to the smallest, scrawniest men within the company. I think you can see just how ridiculous this is.
With unequal pay still an ongoing issue (despite the laws imposed against it) it seems clear that feminist pressure groups are still needed to represent us females. Don't be fooled by the government claims of equal rights. We live in a patriarchy, and until we destroy the age-old assumptions that women are the second sex, we will remain in such a society. I'm not championing a matriarchal form of living, after all, that would make me just as sexists as many men out there, but I do believe that with time and the right education, we can errode the absurd views that are still holding women back from that equal footing the fully deserve.
Please click down to see this review as it was intended. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a .a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a
.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. Once upon a time there was a story about glass ceilings. This was nothing to do with greenhouses but some of society claimed there was a transparent barrio that prevented them climbing any further. The analogy was of course most suited to those companies of yore that didn’t demonstrate the ‘flat hierarchy’ that is so evident today. No, this was a world where promotion meant a further floor to climb each morning to reach the office. Administrative assistants tapped away at their tasks in dark basements whilst managing directors sat in penthouse offices with commanding views over all else. They were physically above everybody else. Now, the glass ceiling in this story was at different levels for different people in different firms but some claimed to have spotted a pattern. Women were bumping their heads more than men. With diligence and charred underwear the fairer sex bounded around the streets explaining clearly what they wanted, mainly whilst tied to railings in public places. They wanted to be allowed to vote … fair enough … though now they are allowed, fewer and fewer choose to do so. They wanted to be allowed to do any job that a man could do … enter Jane Crouch, boxer extraordinaire … and not even I would dare argue with or lampoon her. Most of all though, they wanted prospects. They wanted to be able to climb to the offices with the best views and … here’s the thing … they wanted paying for being there. And so, society listened and society responded. Women, it seemed, had not had the same share of the corporate pie as the men. The reason given was that men worked throughout their lives but that women of the day (some … not all) were giving up work for some years to raise children. The corporations and governments of the western world rallied behind the bra wavers, unfettered those who were chain
ed to railings and sent them forth to work with promises of equity. Most men in work shouted “bravo” and rushed to find a wife. No more would they languish in the financial desert of one income per family and the wife’s paltry wages. No! Now, marriage meant two wages, equally apportioned and wealth would be boundless. As the wages of the women began to rise though the men noticed something … pay settlements were smaller as they had to go to more people. They began to be tied to performance. Permanent contracts that made people feel comfortable in their work and a sense of corporate pride went out and in came performance targets, performance related pay rises and temporary short term contracts. Job security slipped into becoming a historical story of something that happened to parents and grandparents. Moreover, given time, the happily married couple of the end of the final paragraph (check back on their excited expectations) found that now there was no major wage earner the wages each enjoyed seemed not quite sufficient alone to support the family. As time went on it became apparent, they must now both work and that if children were part of the game plan the working must continue still unless they are prepared to sacrifice security and comfort at home. Sure they can move to a smaller and cheaper house on that estate in the centre of town but the crime rate is so much higher that little baby’s safety becomes a concern. No, they will stay put and both go to work, they will after all be able to collect the child from the carer on Friday evening and enjoy a family life together for the weekend. And so, the glass ceiling crumbled. Now, flat hierarchy was the order of the day with men and women passing each other in the elevator as the moved up and down the corporate ladder. The only difference was that society had, in responding to the cries for equality created a social time bomb of children whose parents both work full ti
me and desperately try to summon energy at the end of the day to heat up a microwave meal for the family to share in front of the television before bed and the grind of the next day beginning. Overall, the pay may not be equal and some money appears to have vaporised in the process of equalisation. I do worry that the family as a unit has changed, into what only time will tell. As a teacher I exist on a pay spine of equality which is fine and I do manage to support my wife working fewer days so that our children have some of the time that I believe is so important. I know that many others struggle to do so as their work commitments are slightly more precarious than that of a teacher. I know the old way was wrong but I’m equally sure that the current way is wrong too … anybody help me with an answer before I make it as Prime Minister?
Sorry, I lured you here under false pretences, I'm afraid there isn't going to be any man bashing, I'm far too nice for that kind of thing. I'll start of by saying that men and women have a legal and moral right to receive equal pay, equal treatment and equal opportunities within the workplace. But lets have a look at some raw statistics. Women working full-time earn 18% less per hour than men Women working full-time earn 25% less per week than men Working part-time earn 39% less per hour than full-time men Women's average weekly income is less than half of men's Shock horror, doesn't that sound awful, lets all go out and burn our bra, sue the bastards to get what we deserve! Oh dear, tut tut tut, that's not the way it works at all I'm afraid. You see raw statistic are dangerous, they don't actually mean anything, they're numbers and number are meaningless without a story. Not so long ago the news was ablaze with the revelation that even in this day and age the lifetime earnings of the average woman would be between £142K and 241K less that that of the average man. Sounds awful doesn't it? But you have to ask yourself why. Firstly you have to take into account the kind of jobs women do. More women are employed in low wage, low skilled work that men. Around about the same time figures were issued stating that the bottom ten manual jobs in the UK were staffed 78% by women and the bottom ten non-manual jobs were staffed 78% by women. Also roughly a quarter of women are employed in administrative, secretarial positions. These types of role are traditionally much lower paid than the high skilled manual work and senior official/manager work that is dominated by males. The gender split in associate, professional and technical employment appears to be roughly equal, this makes sense as the lower limit pay differential of 142K applies to higher skil
l ed (and therefore probably the professional) workers. So it seems that part of the pay differential is accounted for by the differing career choices taken by men and women in the UK with women overall making up the majority of lower paid, lower skilled workers. Secondly hours worked is a factor. The simple fact is that on average men work more hours than women do. In the last quarter of 2002 the average number of hours worked for a man in full time employment was 35 compare with only 30 for a woman. Women also make up the majority of part time workers in the UK, with around 1.5 million female part time workers compare to half a million male part time workers. Incidentally, again in professional areas male and female working hours appear very similar and the women outstripping men in the percentage that work more than 50 hours per week or more. So then some of the pay differential can be accounted for in the fact that men often simply work more hours than women, of course this doesn't necessarily mean they do more work but when making pay award that extra few hours that were put in over the assessment period will always show up favourable regardless of how productive it was. Thirdly, family. When you leave work to have a family you will lose out on pay. It's as simple as that. If you take four years of work while your children are young, or even if you work part time, you will be increasing that pay differential You cant expect to come back to work afterwards and be pay the same salary as a man who now has four years experience over you, it just isn't practical. However, more and more women are forfeiting that time at home with their children in order to come back to work, economic inactivity among women has fallen by 7% in the last 19 year with a corresponding increase among men of only 4%. Things are changing slowly, but very slowly, despite the changes in attitude and expectation the majority of family dut
ies ar e still bourn by women, with only 4% of men out of work to look after a family compared with 28% of women. To me this seems unfair on everyone, men, women and children. When we ask for equality it works both ways, while a woman should be entitled to the opportunity to work and succeed as men do, men have an equal right to take of the family. But it doesn't seem to be happening, women find that they have to work harder and longer to achieve that same professional success of men and men find that they are stigmatised if they decide to be the child carer. So even though a woman may not their family circumstances to impact on their career it looks as if they still, significantly, do. So while family commitments still explain some of the pay differentials let hope that the small trend of women working and men caring for family's continues, when this is more equal women will have more of a chance to close the gaps that are opened when they take time to have a family. So on top of these reason for pay differentials there is also one other factor. Discrimination. The equal pay task force estimates that between 20% and 50% of the percentage pay differentials is due to gender discrimination in pay. The way to counter act such discrimination is through transparency, of pay levels, pay awards and salary graded through organisations. Also it is not up to anyone but the person discriminated against to fix the problem, we have the equal pay acts, we have the option of tribunal and we also have the right to tell them to stick their poxy job up their arse and go and find a new one (I've done that twice now). If you find that you are being paid less for the same job than an equally qualified, equal experiences and equally productive male then its your job to be forthright and determined enough to pt that right not just for yourself but for every other person you work with. If it can be done without a tribunal so much t he
better <br > Between 2000 and 2001 women's pay increase faster than men's at 4.6% and 4.1% respectively. If this trend continues then over time the pay differential will all but disappear. If those people being discriminated against ensure that their wrongs are righted then employers with no longer be able to get away with unfair pay differences. But unless typical career choices of women, the weighting of family commitments and the hours worked by women change over time it is unlikely that women will ever achieve true economic equality in the workplace. I started off by thinking one thing but all of my research has lead me to the conclusion that is it the responsibility of women to change their attitudes and approach to working in order to achieve equality in the workplace, no one else can do it for you. I'll just finish of by saying that I do earn more money than my fella (quite a lot more) and I work fewer hours. He will be giving up work to look after any kiddies simply because we couldn't live on his salary. Sources: the office of national statistics, the low pay unit, the equal pay task force (all available online if you look hard enough) (P.S. all of the figures and assumptions here are based on Mr and Mrs Average, I know that these people don't really exist and only general assumptions can be made. Everyone's circumstances are different and I'm sure that there is infinite variety in those that are reading this, remember Mr and Mrs Average okay?)
All the married women I know at work that look like women would rather stay at home and look after the kids ate their leisure. The youngsters are for more energetic with the new university degrees and aspirations and love the buzz. But for most girls nearing forty, sixty hours a week with kids at home means a crap relationship or a kip on the single sofa with a bottle of vino. Im not saying the work place is a mans world but its geared to the parent that isnt breast feeding the kid. Career progression comes from putting in long hours and knowing the employee is going to be in the work place more than the home. In normal circumstances ten years ago that would mostly be me and the guys reading this, and we didn?t really care for it, especially if the wife decides to look elsewhere cause your knackered every night earning the wonga. Women have all the opportunities in the world now to have great independent lives and lifestyles. But married and women with children are saying to anyone who will listen that they feel financially pressured to work, but personally feel staying at home with the kids it?s the right thing to do. Not in every case, but most in middle age let?s say. New Labor have been pushing to get women back into work after having children, with little success, especially in low skilled areas. So the girls who do stick with it after pregnancies have a free range of careers geared to them. Most new mums take a bit of time with their kids before returning to work, not so much for career reasons but hard cash reasons. Im recently divorced and luckily have no kids. The only good thing about my personal situation is that she can?t ask for maintenance to subsidize her boyfriend, or wine list!. To be honest, and I think new mums will agree, most seem knackered trying to bring up kids and have jobs. That alone is enough to break down relationships. Defintaly if her income is half the household bills. I would say very few
would go back to work in normal jobs if given the choice. But such is the modern day mantra to have the`independent lifestyle`they keep working as if an addiction. I was reading a girl?s magazine next to my favorite, Jane?s Weekly, the read for every third world dictator.It said that in a recent survey that Britain has the highest number of working couples in Europe.8/10 couples living together work and split the bills,with seven out of ten continuing the trend by working when the kids come into their lives. A lot of that is to do with the current sky-high mortgages. It suggested that here in England, three out of four mums worked for financial and not the love of their chosen employment. Only one in fifty said they would work full time if they could stay at home.I wish I could believe that, they still find time to knock of the boss in the office though!,grrrrrrrrrrrrr. If any girls out there are looking for the easier less stressed lives, then look no further than the Latin countries. In Spain Italy and Greece, all the hairy men insist the wives and girlfriends stay at home chained to the moped. I think the decline of marriage is down to women going to university,(one in three) and the abolishing of married tax allowances. In some ways, college is liberating women into leading their own lives, and not settling for a mildly compatible bloke. Recent tax breaks are geared to helping women back to work, rather than traditonal?back to basics? stuff. We all know though, New Labors tax system is geared to working people rather than childcare. The benefits system is skewered towards pushing girls into work, single parents etc. At the end of the day, you girls have to work weather you like it or not, and perhaps you know how it feels when you have the pressure as the breadwinner a little more. And you won?t start those stupid petty arguments to wind up your man,grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Now all we are left with is the Bridget Jo
nes factor. Hoards of busy professional girls drinking with the ladettes and playing hard find they are longing for babies, husbands to bring fulfillment. In fact careers are domestic drudgery as the other domestic drudgeries in motherhood. This new breed of women came from changing education attitudes to gearing women to more masculine subjects in class. Now that lot of super girls has come through and they are unsure where to go. Guy?s are still guys and fulfilling their traditional roles. One feminist said that women without men were like fish without bicycles, more like loose change with out wallets!. The big question is weather gender differences that shape peoples careers, are from social pressures on women or biological. Are women programmed to derive happiness from the home and motherhood instead of the absence of it. Are men succeeding in work better because they to are programmed to hunt and provide. All the women out there reading this no the answer. It its any relief, one percent of the country earn and generate 90%of the wealth, so we are pretty insignificant regardless of where we work tomorrow. When the recent pay inflation results were released from Whitehall, but they had to be adjusted from 1.9% to 2.5 because they forgot to include one, yes one city firms bonuses. That to me puts it all in focus as to just how much we are all slaving away equally to pay the big, or woman with a cigar.
Why does this opinion keep on need updating. Fine then i will update my opinion. Again i'm male and i don't care who gets payed more, whether it's male or female. I believe in work related pay, if you work hard and your good at your job should be paid quite highly but if your rubbish at your job you should get paid less, it doesn't matter whether your male or female. But the matter in the fact is that this scheme will never work because if a woman gets payed less under the same job title she will complain and then there would be equal pay no matter what, this will dicourage the harder workers and think what's the point we all get paid the same why work as hard as i did, which sadly is the truth. But when a woman gets payed more than a man there nothing done about it. I'm all for equal oppotunity but the women want all the easy jobs, i say if they want equal oppotunity become bin women and earn your respect like everyone else and not just expect them to get every thing for nothing. This is bigger then equal oppotunity it goes in socialism but i will not slag that off today. I understand that it is wrong to pay men and women differently for doing the same job, but it's all about responsiblity and pressure's of a job. Remember this is a joke at the bottom. But as Al Murray say’s “I believe that a man and woman should get paid the same, that’s why I let the woman work twice as long so she can earn the same
The news that female graduates under 24 get 18% less than their male counterparts for the same graduate positions is real teaser. Obviously the position isn?t advertised as guys earn more than girls for this job in bold black type. Its more likely that the companies offer a male and female draught each year with the same job offered under a different title if they have a pay differential prejudice. What?s also likely to happen is that males in the same positions are more likely to be competitive and earn more through commitment in closing deals where applicable and bonuses through arrogance. Girls generally are more subtle at work and tend not to have the same macho attitude fueled by testosterone that may achieve higher returns for them and the company. That male hormone means guys want it more in a competitive environment which means trampling on girls who don?t quite have that intensive win at all costs attitude. Its envitable to that with this culture, more bosses in certain industries are more likely to be male and would block girl?s promotion because of their experience. The BBC has a show on at the moment about civy street people trying to get in the SAS. The instructors are openly critical of allowing women in to the core and apply the grueling physical and mental test equally to both sexes. And of course after one episode we have lost all but one of the girls to the nineteen remaining guys fueled on those more aggressive hormones and egos. So even at a young roar age bosses recognize that female graduates in certain disciplines are not going to generate their company as much s male counterparts which is reflected in the wages. Now where it becomes more apparent is in older university educated males and females as the gap opens like the Grand Canyon. Over 50 girls in the same career and position get an incredible 50% less that the guys. The equal opportunities people who commissioned this survey has la
unched an initiative where girl?s can inquire why they are being underpaid at such a young age. Older girls are more likely to have children or drop out which is understandable with around one in three graduates married and part time in other disciplines by the time they hit the big 30 in work terms. Guys of course just crash on as they have no maternal instincts or the means to deliver one so have no natural inclination to stop. The problem is though that pay reviews are more likely to expose female failings than an unwillingness for employers to pay equitable salaries. Obviously if a large chunk of women train and study for a certain career and then get married and have a kids, they are unlikely to reach the same commitment and salary levels as their more committed male equivalents. Nine out of ten employers don?t believe they have a bias towards guys but tend not to back it up with a pay review. But if girls are just as good and if not better than guys in the same roles it would be logical to pay them more to keep em. Its basic economics that you invest in something or someone that?s going to give you the best return. Maybe girls are still a little intimidated with the male orientated work place and attitudes that reflects in the salaries. That alone could encourage them to opt out of their chosen career and perhaps take an easier option by marrying or having kids. Women always have an option to step out of their job when marriage or partnerships come along. This of course puts more pressure on the husband to achieve which helps to continue that cycle of non-parity between the sexes. The same organization that initiated this survey told us to years ago through a similar pole that 92% of women of all employment over 40 if given the option would like to change or leave employment to work around their families and lifestyles. That sounds a touch contradictory to all the girls who say women on block are changing attitudes an
d role reversing. The final irony here is that the hundreds of female staff at ACAS, the union arbitration board are in dispute with the management that the wage structure was set up to discriminate against women. Ok I know the girls will rant at me who are balancing career and family amicably with the husband at home or working. But at the end of the day the reason women are not as powerful in the work place is because they have the option and glass ceiling of having children at anytime in their careers which could mean an abrupt ending to all that investment and time in them.
I have read several opinions on this subject that have actually alarmed me, quite literally, and spurred me on to write about a subject that I deal with on a regular basis in my work as a trade unionist. The Equal Pay Act (EPA) came into force in 1970 - over thirty years ago. It states: ‘there should be equal pay between women and men in the same employment.’ Women workers have tolerated poor pay because society has traditionally undervalued the kind of work they do. Why for instance should a dustbin man (or woman) be paid more than a qualified Nursery Nurse who nurtures the children of the future? Yet some Nursery Nurses earn less than £8,000. How are we to attract the right kind of people into these sorts of positions when the pay is so unnecessarily low? The Act applies to the value of a role as well as equivalence in role and to people who work part time, full time or on temporary contracts. People who work part time should be paid the part time equivalent of the full time salary for the role. Its not just about women. Equal pay is not even just about wages and salaries. It covers bonuses, overtime, shift payments, holiday pay, sick pay, performance related pay or occupational pensions and share options. The ‘equal pay for work of equal value’ amendment to the EPA has been a significant breakthrough in addressing the value placed on caring roles as opposed to more physical ones. Because of the amendment, women in caring jobs are now able to compare themselves to male colleagues who do more physical work. There are quite a few ways companies try to get around the Act for example: ·Appointing women on a lower rate of pay than male colleagues ·Giving women different titles and grades to those of men doing similar work ·Placing staff on individual contracts and making it an offence for them to discuss their pay rates ·Giving different company cars ·Denying women overtime ·Paying a woman, ethnic minority or disabled person less than someone else on promotion despite better performance This is not exhaustive. Some employers are known to try and use minor differences such as a man on a fish counter and a woman on the deli counter, or even a disabled person who couldn’t stand for too long when the job only required him to sit down as excuses to justify pay differentials. This is real life! ~oOOo~ In spite of 30 years of equal pay legislation the pay gap between women and men stands at 18%. Women working full time earn approximately 80 pence for every pound earned by male full time employees. For people working part time the figure drops to 60 pence. This is comparing like with like. Unions have had a very significant impact in raising women’s pay by negotiating for equal pay between women and men. A unionised workforce earns more than a non-unionised workforce and on average a woman earns 25% more where a union is recognised. The gender pay gap is also lower, but the UK is still 10th out of 15 in the European Union equal pay league table. ~oOOo~ It has been said that we should not try and correct the past, but we have to remember that all employers that have not implemented the Equal Pay Act have been acting illegally since 1970, so they do have a duty to provide compensation to women AND men (because that happens too), disabled people and black and ethnic minorities who are known to have been discriminated against since that date and to bring their salaries in line with their peers’ based on performance in like for like jobs. It is also important to remember that there are people who face multiple discrimination for example a white disabled woman or black disabled man, and it is vital not to be blasé about it. It is happening. For every ‘imagined’ case of discrimination there are tenfold ‘r
eal’ ones. ~oOOo~ If you think you have been discriminated against under the Equal Pay Act, you can do one of three things: ~1~Ignore it There are many people who do not want to ‘rock the boat’ for fear of reprisals with regard to future progression or how they will be treated when it is all over. This is understandable and only you can decide if you are prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. Although it is worth noting that it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of an action taken by them in cases like this. ~oOOo~ ~2~ Tackle it yourself Some people are quite confident and once they know they are being treated less favourably than similarly employed colleagues they feel able to confront their bosses (wish I was one of those!). If you do decide to take this course of action, arm yourself with as much concrete information as possible and you may wish to use a solicitor. Check their track record and choose carefully. Claims under the Equal Pay Act can be taken at any time up to six months after you leave the company and Courts have said that relatively small differences in the content of a job can be ignored when considering equal pay claims as they would not be likely to affect pay or terms and conditions and therefore should not rule out a like for like claim at tribunal. ~oOOo~ ~3~ Join a Trade Union Trade unions are often wary of taking on new members who just want them to deal with pre-existing problems, in fairness to current members. But in cases like these you will probably find one to represent you. You will have very experienced people working on your behalf and they will tell you if your chances of success are slim. Again, choose carefully. There are specialist unions and also general ones. Go for one that has expertise in your field of work as they will already have the in
dustry data. ~oOOo~ NATFHE, the union that represents teachers in further and higher education, found that male academics are currently being paid up to £8000 more than women doing exactly the jobs. This isn’t acceptable, but it is happening. De Montfort University in Leicester recently settled an equal pay claim out of court to the tune of £10,000. The lecturer in question was appointed on approximately £6,000 less than a colleague who had similar qualifications. ~oOOo~ In my workplace there is a proper grading structure. There is a minimum and maximum salary for each role and everyone starts at the bottom of their grade. Moving to the top of the grade can be achieved within 5 years and each year pay negotiations are undertaken by our staff committee. Everything is open and above board. I think that employers should be under obligation to monitor and review their pay systems by gender, ethnicity and disability and forced to implement equal pay policies. They will not do it otherwise, time has proved this.